About your Search

20130801
20130831
STATION
CSPAN 38
LANGUAGE
English 38
Search Results 0 to 37 of about 38 (some duplicates have been removed)
disgusted in a whole parade of traders, and that includes john mccain, lindsey graham, george bush, who has sponsored the center in texas, and i suffered through two hours of propaganda out of the bush center, and they treat america as a whorehouse. stephen moore treats america like a whorehouse. it is not about the money. c-span keeps playing all of these people. i want to see some balance. one thing mentioned at the george bush center from the hispanic chamber of commerce guy, he was lobbing these wonderful hispanic companies. have any of them enrolled in either a five so they will be true to the 1986 amnesty, which, at that point, required all employers verify eligibility by these workers. they have not done it. we have george bush, mccain, they have done nothing but subvert the law for the last 25 years, and they are trying to put the nail in our coffin now. i would like to see more balance from c-span. there was a wonderful march for jobs in washington dc. i have seen none of that on c- span. i would love to see that. jeb, much loved in alabama, he was the speaker of the conference. th
of george w. bush. thank you for the invitation. thunder a little bit when you talk about four percent growth year it i would add to what you said, that i do not think we can accomplish four percent growth without immigration. it is a precondition to get to that higher growth rate. it may be too low. we are in the fourth leader -- year of non-recovery. there is no reason the economy cannot he recovering much faster than it is geared five, six, or seven percent growth. it is interesting, if you look at the time i called the quarter-century of spectacular, unprecedented growth in america, 2005 -- 1980 two 2005 -- to 2005. let in well over 200 americans in that time. badle say immigration is for the economy or it causes high unemployment. the actual evidence shows the opposite, that the biggest boom. of american history was the greatest in immigration. it is circumstantial evidence. a second point is with respect to state. it is so interesting. we do a lot of work at the wall street journal. comparing texas to california, it is a good comparison if you are from texas and believe in the fr
. there are all kinds of safeguards built into this. i remember george bush, when he talked about this program, when it was first revealed by the new york times. he said, when al qaeda calls somebody in the united states, i want to know who they are calling. that is kind of the underlying philosophy of this program. talking again -- it always intends to spill over into people thinking, maybe we are monitoring the actual content of their conversations, is we are not all stop this metadata. it is effectively the outside of the envelope that is put in your mailbox. it is that information that is on the envelope. and the date stamp in the postage stamp. would you have people believe that metadata has no significant privacy interest? i would rather, if i had a choice -- i hope not to have either of these choices -- of having every phone conversation i have for 30 days listens to, which is impractical, to have a large number of people doing all my metadata collected for 30 days. i would much rather. >> if it was collected by proctor and gamble or colgate, i would be worried. sometimes, we do not thi
for the george bush administration to protect us from the terrorists. createdthe scandal they by the republicans so they can take points from the democrats won the elections come. from twitter says what is needed is a clear personal data law. kirk is up next from pittsburgh, pennsylvania. on the democrats line -- caller: good morning. would 100% advocate for this nsa program and others like it, if only they would truly concentrate on the real terrorist. this is to belittle what occurred on 9/11 or happened at the boston marathon, but there are tens of thousands of americans that die every year. tot is due to corporate ceos pollute our rivers and streams and even our ocean. did in the gulf of mexico, and here in pennsylvania we have more super clean up sites. the name ofdone in greed versus gluttony. relate that to the surveillance program. survey these corporations, who are murdering tens of thousands of people , get the goods on them, arrest them, try them, and sentence them or execute him for the crimes they are committee. host: will from columbia, tennessee. caller: good morning. thank you c-
in the "new york times" in 2005. george bush partially declassified it. i learned, for the first time, to my extreme dismay, that in the first 3.5 years of this program, the president had used his article to authority to run the program, rather than the provisions of law, fica, which congress enacted in 1978, the foreign intelligence surveillance act was passed in 1978 in response to the abuses of the nixon administration and the recommendation of the church commission. it set up a careful system of a fisa court, an intelligence committee on the hill was set up then to monitor these applications. it worked very well, in my view, through 2001. congress after that pulled it back. i believe strongly that may the amount of metadata is excessive. i am sure my buddy thinks this. that ought to be debated. maybe the program should be narrowed. there has been robust oversight over the years. >> i want to be clear on this. who can accesses data and for what purposes? >> i think this was in a letter that went to the hill yesterday. papers were sent to congress in 2009. i cannot speak to any individual
dick cheney, george bush, waterboarding, the fbi and others, and the nsa has been unscathed. the only time it has really come up as a matter of debate in the intelligence community was people from the nsa humming forward and saying what a rough time they were having with the fisa court, how hard it was for them to get orders, how hard it was for them to follow up on the information. this is not a rubber stamp. it is constantly scrutinized. it is scrutinized by the house intelligence committee and senate intelligence committee. i realize by going to the american people and saying, congress is taking a look at it, that is not a vote of confidence. people on that committee, and people on the intelligence they take very seriously. mike rogers is conscientious. dutch ruppersberger is as well. the stuff is looked at very carefully. i do not see any significant violation of civil liberties. i do not see any significant -- -- in 2009, balance i, i was at mayor bloomberg's home sunday night in september of 2009, entertained the lord , rupert murdoch was there, all these partial people, and eve
collar. caller: do you know the reasoning kind why george bush -- behind why george bush wanted to sell our ports? not know you member this. i think he is referring to 2004, the dubai company wanted to buy a port in the united states. guest: i certainly remember that. guest: we believe in privatizing the ports here. i think in the full length of time i decided to keep the state owned. host: what does that mean? i believe wasler referring to when there was discussion here locally about actually selling the port to a .oreign company that came to a full halt. i thought that was the right thing at the time. host: what does this mean to you that this is a state owned entity? guest: it is run and the public good. if it is privately own you have to maximize short-term profit. with government owned we can look at the long-term benefits to the commonwealth of virginia. that is why i am delighted that we do not sell it. we have to consider all of this. the fact that it is now still in control the commonwealth and use for the public good, that makes a good. host: is this port sustained by revenues
in the george bush white house. he's taking your comments and questions as we discuss syria this morning. jerry is up next from cookville, tennessee. jerry good morning. caller: good morning. the president is talking about the shot in the bow. i find it frightening when it comes to this president and foreign policy. it was a game of chess, i believe it would be a check mate game against this president. he's done nothing but absolute disaster. look at north africa. look at that. some democrats are calling it a success his foreign policy. it's frightening what's happening. i don't see anything that's any good. just think, if he happen to won the nobel peace prize, how bad things really might be. host: we'll go to democratic line, dave is waiting from washington d.c. good morning. caller: peter. the reason that the u.k. not to proceed is because there was a lack of conclusive evidence. in the regions and suburbs of damascus there is not conclusive evidence that the chemical weapon attack were perpetrated by a horrible attack regime. the obama administration has made entirely clear that they wi
andduring during the george herbert walker bush administration, the anti- tank buster rounds that were 1982.ed in we are not totally innocent either. it is hard to believe the administration. i know they are doing their best to settle the conflict in the middle east. is kind of hard when you are just as dirty as the rest of them. you can also reach out to us via e-mail. andy from vernon, new york. thanks for holding on, republican line. taking myink you for call. i want to add onto to what the last guy said. ,f your audience goes to google they are going to find numerous stories where syrian rebels admitted to an associated press correspondent that they were responsible for the chemical weapons incident, which obama is trying to blame on bashar al- assad. the casualties were a result of by mishandling the weapons. they were told that they were not properly trained in handling the chemical weapons or even told what they were. that is where it came from. this is really reminiscent of the buildup to the first iraq war in the 90s when the iraq incubator incident, in which they fabricated story
for former president george w. bush after he underwent heart surgery. in an e-mail to supporters, the nrcc writes that the procedure went according to plan and bush is in good spirits. president george w. bush courageously defended our freedom and our country, and we are missing his days in office now more than ever. the mail also contains a link byking supporters to chip in donating money to help us send president bush a bouquet of bluebonnets, the texas state flower. also, this message from the kremlin. russian president vladimir putin today is wishing george w. bush a speedy recovery. speaking of former president, from a member of the washington post the fix -- it was 39 years ago today that richard nixon announced he would resign. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. suburb some sort of anti- person who thinks everybody needs to live in new york city. comingensitive to be across as a condo-dwelling elitist of some kind. that is not why i did this book. i understand why people like the suburbs. i get fed up with a lot of daily life in new york city. undeniablewere so
on immigration. here is a preview of the event hosted last month at the george w. bush institute last month. these are just rough numbers, about a million new jobs in the state of texas in the last five years. roughly a million lost jobs in california. that is amazing. points is what we are seeing right now is one of the great wealth transfers in american history geographically from states like california that don't get it right, my home state of illinois that don't get it right and states that do get it right like texas. this is one reason to be bullish on the future of texas. the interesting thing is texas and california are the two highest immigration states. the tax system is a much better job of economically assimilating immigrants so they are successful here. tell a foreign more of a welfare invites immigrants and the welfare system at a much higher pace than texas does. people come to texas, in my opinion, for jobs. people come to california for welfare grade i think you see the differing economic outcomes as a result. texas is the model other states should be emulating. see that ent
a little bit of heat from the george w. bush campaign for not being prepared to wage traditional conflict because of its bulk and deployments and task forces. typically would be the most likely vehicle. also, in the professional military education feel, absolutely correct -- the peacekeeping stabilization , the u.s.institute army war college, the national defense university -- they will continue to be pockets of expertise on which we can draw. need for goode comparative knowledge. one of the biggest challenges we -- we always have is that people over-generalize. it does not always work in one place the same as another. >> i have six people so far and there may be a few others and we will try to fit you all in. the gentle man and the last row? i am here from a study at georgetown university. is about broadening our lens for tools for transition. a conflict was the first reaction from the united states 30 or 40 years ago when the european union started working and building up the institutions for common security and defense policy. there seems to be a slight change of the discussion about b
they did? george h.w. bush, because about 20 years later, a woman showed up to one of his rallies with a pistol in her purse, and they were doing something they had done for the last 20 years that they had not done the 200 years before then. they were checking purses, too, and they found that. then you say to yourself, maybe what we need, maybe what we need is a racial squeaky fromm, and you start searching through the history books, you find out we had one.in 1901. raise your hand if you remember who was president before theodore roosevelt. no one remembered.a few guys, thank you. put those guys on "jeopardy!" most people forget when roosevelt came into the administration he was vice president and was somewhat who is this guy, this showboat guy from -- fighting wars in cuba. hat elevated him was that he was a very popular vice president for a popular president. it was mckinley.he was killed just after he was reelected. he was at a pan-american exposition, a world's fair in new york state. president mckinley was working the rope line, and a man standing at point blank range at the
, not everybody, but a lot of people would agree that president bush, george w. bush, was obligated to strike back against al qaeda after september 11, 2001. we were attacked, and we had to respond. and i think that most people would say that president obama the very right to launch azeinab badawi race that killed osama bin laden. history and diplomacy co-exist. they interact with each other and they sometimes can complement each other. richard holbrooke, the late richard holbrooke, great american diplomat, i don't think he would have been able to secure the peace in bosnia had we not used force for six weeks to demonstrate to the bosnian-serb army that we were not going to permit them to continue to kill innocent muslims. and it was that use of force that achieved the cease-fire and drove them to the negotiating table where holbrook worked his magic and brought peace to bosnia after five years of war. so there are times when we have to rely on our military and we're fortunate, as all of you know, to have extraordinary young men and women in our military and the army and the navy and the air force
is related to the polks and she used their dinner service while her and george bush was in the office. is that true? >> i don't know. good question. >> as our series progresses, as we get it barbara bush, we'll answer that question for you. we'll go back in time and learn about how that political partnership came together. you told us sarah polk was from a wealthy family in tennessee. how did she and james polk meet? >> they ran in the same circles. probably through -- either through andrew jackson or through her own father's family. polk went to the -- graduated from the university of north carolina and then went into law and studied in nashville and became clerk of the legislature and they met there or they met at andrew jackson's because the polk girls were often at the jackson's home. certainly jackson is known or we think that he advised polk to marry her. this is who you need as a wife, he would say. and then it is commonly said that she told polk she wouldn't marry him unless he ran for office but and of course he did and he won and they were married in 1824. >> so andrew jacks
friends. .hey were pretty frustrated they did not like george bush very much. they sure hated losing to him in 2004, even more than 2000. they did not quit. they took the house and the senate in 2006. they never try to impeach george bush. think long and hard. always easier to say try it. usually that means we need to work harder at what we are doing. i am old enough to watch barry goldwater go down in flames. took 16 years to get one old reagan -- to get ronald reagan. democracy is hard work. it is people going out and knocking on doors. is is people going out and voting. .ur system works it is hard to work in part because that is what the founders wanted to be. they are afraid of centralized power. they're going to make this very difficult to do. they're going to have this president for four years that selected this. there's no other system that is is as complex as ours to work and get things through. the founders but it was the best defense for liberty. out.large it has worked i believe that madison came back he would be very happy. sometimes they do. different point of view are s
, for operations are supported, we cut the budget and increased the number of overseas activities, and george w. bush did not run for president -- if you go back to his campaign, he did not run promising a big defense buildup and he was not intending to make foreign policy the centerpiece of his policy, and he ended up making the most fraught decision about the war in iraq. i do not think cutting our military will be the best way to keep us out of trouble in the south china sea. i want steadiness and resolve and let's sustain the rebalance. that means we can make modest cuts in defense. >> amen. i feel like i should applaud. i think that was very powerful on michael's part. i would not put all my eggs in one basket. i want peace through strength or a modern-day version of it because i want a military that deters. i want other things, too. i want strong allies, our partners' capacity to be robust enough to defend themselves if needed and take care of their neighborhoods, so to speak. i want all of our tools of soft power to be effective, partly through the reinforcement from our hard power. i wa
john mccain got great press when he ran against george w. bush in the primaries. in 2008 he was on the other end of that. those things ebb and flow a little bit. i do not think in anyway those are the decisive in the way of presidential campaigns come out. i think if you talk to the romney people they felt that governor romney was unfair at different points along the way. i used to get e-mails about things that were being written or said or talked about. in general, i think those things balance out. in this campaign in particular there was never any question about vulnerabilities or weaknesses in terms of what happened with the economy. in a sense that both of them had had was they have to deal with. host: on twitter -- guest: perhaps so. especially with his medicare plan and his proposal to make a voucher out of that. i don't know it would have been significantly better had he picked someone else. host: jim messina asked to pledge that they do not rerun the 2008 campaign. jim messina explained that in their bid for reelection, both jimmy carter and george herbert walker bus
and increased the number of overseas activities, and george w. bush did not run for president -- if you go back to his campaign, he did not run promising a big defense buildup and he was not intending to make foreign-policy the center piece his policy, and he ended up making the most fraught decision about the war in iraq. i do not think cutting our military will be the best way to keep us out of trouble in the south china sea. i want steadiness and resolve and let's sustain the rebalance. that means we can make modest cuts in defense. >> amen. should applaud. i think that was very powerful on michael's part. i would not put all my eggs in one basket. peace through strength or a modern-day version of it because i want a military that deters. other things, too. i want strong allies, our be robustapacity to enough to defend themselves if needed and take care of their neighborhoods, so to speak. i want all of our tools of soft power to be effective, partly through the reinforcement from our hard power. i want a lot of things. i want economic strength, etc. pointy edge of the spirit is to have this
, and that is killing terrorists in mass. the two most hated people in andt are not george bush benjamin netanyahu. it is president obama and patterson. when the egyptians were government,he morsi patterson asked the christian leaders not to take part in a protest. booked -- she was bluntly told to shut up and mind her own business. obama backs terrorists. host: thank you for the call. street9 of the "wall journal." ats really began on july 3 the military deposes president morsi, you can see how the events have unfolded over the last five weeks. ambassador syed spoke here in washington at the institute yesterday, provided a timeline of how things unfolded. it is part of an event that we covered, runs just over an hour. it is available online at our website at www.c-span.org. here is a portion. [video clip] >> polarization of the country. an environment of finances of ,hem, determination, exclusion on a religion basis. fanaticism, discrimination, exclusion, on a religious basis. between whoever is non-muslim brothers and the muslim others, no matter to which religion he or she belongs. for the firs
an issue of some level of hypocrisy in terms of the outrange that was heaped upon the george bush administration with respect to afghanistan and iraq. but there are some slight differences here. one to do with the documented facts of the u.s. of chemical weapons. number two, the general sense that this regime is unhenged and therefore needs to be contained in a way that you didn't necessarily see with the likes of some of the other players over the last few years, whether you're talking iran or whatever. so, i think that there's a different tone that you have with syria that you didn't have with the others. again, i harken back to similarities to kosovo from humanitarian perspective but it does put the democrats in a very ticklish box right now, particularly given the warriness of the american host: jim is on the line from texas. republican line. is whatmy question about this tainted election -- the obama administration. guest: in what respect? irs.r: the guest: the irs is a huge issue. i do not know how that translated in terms of a repressed election. that mightgroups have been
bush, and george w. bush. they say that, quote, there is no longer any credible scientific debate, end quote, about climate change. and they also point out that our window for action is shrinking. they say they support the actions that the president is now taking under the clean air act to reduce carbon pollution, and they call on congress to start the overdue debate about what bigger steps are needed domestically and internationally. and they conclude with this very powerful statement. quote, the only uncertainty about our world is how bad these changes will get and how soon what is most clear is that there is no time to waste, end quote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to address attorney general holder's misinterpretation of federalism and his disregard for our system of checks and balances. the supreme court was clear in shelby vs. hold
when he ran against george w. bush in the primaries. in 2008 he was on the other end of that. those things and and flow in little bit. i do not think in anyway those are the decisive in the way of presidential campaigns. i think if you talk to the romney people they felt that governor romney was unfair at different points along the way. about to get e-mails things that were being written or said or talked about. in general i think those things balanced out. in this campaign in particular there was never any western orut vulnerabilities weaknesses in terms of what happened with the economy. in a sense that both of them had had was they have to deal with. on twitter -- perhaps so. especially with his medicare plan and his proposal to make a voucher out of that. i don't know it would have been significantly better had he picked someone else. jim mussina asked to pledge that they do not rerun in the campaign. mussina explained that in their bid for reelection, both jimmy carter and george herbert walker bush try to rerun their first campaign. the world changes from the first electric to
dakota, republican collar. caller: do you know the reasoning kind why george bush wanted to -- behind why george bush wanted to sell our ports? host: i do not know you member this. i think he is referring to 2004, the dubai company wanted to buy a port in the united states. guest: i certainly remember that. guest: we believe in privatizing the ports here. i think in the full length of time i decided to keep the state owned. host: what does that mean? guest: the caller i believe was referring to when there was discussion here locally about actually selling the port to a foreign company. that came to a full halt. i thought that was the right thing at the time. you: what does this mean to that this is a state owned entity? guest: it is run and the public good. if it is privately own you have to maximize short-term profit. with government owned we can look at the long-term benefits to the commonwealth of virginia. that is why i am delighted that we do not sell it. we have to consider all of this. the fact that it is now still in control the commonwealth and use for the public good, that makes
capacities when george w. bush was governor of texas. we are really delighted that wen has developed such visuals to help understand the complicated story of finding what did not work so well and how we can do better the next time. we have invited him to make his presentation first. jim has recently finished up his tour at the pentagon. career he was a research research scholar at the national defense university rector of research there. he worked throughout his career on the questions a stabilization and reconstruction including at the un and other success stories in cambodia amid the balkans, and elsewhere. he will speak on his own reflections of what will be the right tools and mechanisms to respond and post-conflict environments. we are very delighted to have leanne smith, the director of the policy and risk best practices services. she has been in that position for years. she has a long career as an australian diplomat and a person who has worked on humanitarian law. we do really want to bring in how does the broader international community handle these questions. they are the c
as even can for this president. though this program started under george bush. i do not think edward snowden would have had the courage to come out with something like this during that administration because we would not even know where he was right now if he was anywhere. guest: i am sympathetic. i think many in his theynistration know better. know there is a first amendment that whistleblowers need to be protected. he campaigned to get national security whistle-blowers and intelligence whistle-blowers equal rights to other federal employees. i was at that meeting where his administration backed off the promise is very early on. capitulated to the same special interests. it has been that way for all the residents.bush, everybody has gone along with the exception of intelligence. it is disappointing, extremely disappointing, but that is the nature of our political system right now.it's up to the american people to voice their concerns. demand all federal employees need the safe, effective channels to voice concerns and will lead to a full review of their concerns. we need to push for
will ever know what is inside vladimir putin's head. that was the irony of george w. bush coming back from that first meeting with putin and saying, i looked into his eyes and saw the man's soul. nobody really knows what putin is thinking. what we know from his behavior in public statements is, he really values a partner. whether it is an american leader or a leader of any other country , who is in control of his own country, who has a similar level of this vertical of power that putin possesses in russia. when the leader commits something, when president obama says, we will do this, it happens. this was one of the things he saw as different between bush and obama. he viewed bush as a guy who would say something, and would stand behind it, at least as far as his power allowed him to do so. his view of obama has been, he is to subject to domestic political constraints. to domesticbject political constraints. russia acceded to the wto organization. the implement thing legislation, we had to repeal these old, cold war era sanctions to get the benefit. along with that, a lot of folks on the hi
uncontrolled bureaucracies under george bush. i experienced them. he did, too. it goes back to the thing we started with. this government is on -- out of control. it has been predicted by historians our republic would fail. the question is, how do we cheat history? how do we go back? how do we re-embraced the things that made america great? as i said earlier, we have to get in charge. i have been working for nine years to try to make a big difference. i have made a small difference, not a big difference. i worked every day -- > we are going to leave this -- i'm convinced the only way we do that is start reassessing real convention changes to the constitution that restore 0 federalism and a constitutional relationship republic. i think that's the way. you're frustrated. you ought to see me in washington. sk my staff. sk reply wife. i see two things. one, i seed constitution, and i see what's happening to it. then i see grown men and women that don't care. that's what really makes me want to pull my hair out. they ignore what the constitution says because it is better for their political care
to mind the words of sheila bexar a george w. bush administration official who in february urged her fellow republicans to remember that from lincoln's transcontinental railroad to eisenhower's highway system, republicans have understood that investing in critical infrastructure projects creates jobs and expands the economy. and yet the appropriations bill that was on the floor this week would have cut $2 billion from the department of transportation. it was a total rejection of the lincoln-eisenhower tradition. e have spent $87 billion rebuilding the infrastructure of afghanistan and just to -- just approved $5 billion more. according to the united states inspector general, supporters of the taliban and al qaeda are getting contracts and far too much will be wasted due o-- due to insufficient oversight. this, mr. speaker is appalling and it's time to do nation building here at home. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for one minute.
by congress kerry not a dime voted for it. if george w. bush had done that, we would have had grounds for impeachment. -- cries for impeachment. we had laws that were unilaterally suspended by the president. there is a variety of issues like that where he has gone outside. so we have tension within our system, struggles between congress and the president but this one is very serious. but there will be legal cases. i am going to try and bounce around a little bit, but we will get to everybody. we are going to wear will's legs out. >> i was concerned to find out you were not in support of making the continuing resolution contingent upon removing what optional spending you can remove on obama care. i feel very strongly. from a point ofk view. two weeks ago today, my husband and i paid in cash for our son to have major surgery. four hour procedure. that is the price i pay for the liberty of my children. i am self-employed. i understand the consequences and i have limited options on insurance. i understand that i paid for a limited coverage, the limited i can expose so i do not pay $1000 a
the administration you work for and what you're responsible for. >> so i served under both terms of the george w. bush administration. was actually appointed by the transportation secretary norman mineta. as you may know, mr. mineta is a democrat served in the republican administration and r authoring and then congress passed a reorganization act that led to the creation of this agency. and this agency at the u.s. d.o.t. oversees a million daily shipments of has does materials by all modes of transportation, air, land, truck, sea, vessel. and even pipeline. >> so your current work with united transportation advisers, what is that? >> a consulting firm. i'm a lawyer, have a law practice and consulting practice. so we talk infrastructure projects, we talk transportation projects to both public and private sector clients. >> so one of y clients key stone xl? not. >> anybody supporting nosir. >> so as far as key stone xl is concerned, the position that you are taking through the advisers or anyone else, where do you stand on it or if it should be built? >> i've been monitoring this for several years
post says april 30, 1973 calls with ronald reagan and george h. w. bush were captured on a secret recording system that nixon used to take conversations from february 1971 to july 1973. there were 140,000 pages of text documents. reagan, the governor of california, called late in the evening of april 30 to support nixon after nixon delivered a landmark speech about the watergate scandal. he says, my heart is with you. i know what these months have been and what you have been through. we are still behind you out here. you are in our prayers. on more call from nebraska the independent line. like there areds a lot of the uninformed people calling. they have no idea of the scope of the material he released. if you look at the previous incident, it is just crazy. if you are going to claim the pedophiles ent and in afghanistan are the same, you are crazy. that is all i have to say. that is the last call. later, the cost and future sustainability of the fighter built by lockheed martin. we will take on those topics and "ore when "washington journal continues after this. to see the loss o
of defense in the george h w bush administration. who morrow is at the end covers the court for the national law journal and prior to that, he was a reporter for " legal times" and" usa today." i want to introduce terry to wner in the middle of all these reporters. she is here because she is an academic from oakland university who studies to things that are quite relevant to this particular panel. one is the supreme court and the press and the other is the role of new media. we will start with professor towner and after she finishes her presentation, we will go tonythe line from tom on and then we will open it up for questions. oakland university located in rochester, michigan. i specialize in american politics and media and politics and this is one of the reasons i am here. onresearch tends to focus the role of social media and campaigns and elections with the specific focus on the task to presidential elections, dubbed as they web 2.0 elections. examined how journalists and reporters frame media coverage of the court particularly regarding affirmative action cases. recently, the cont
the george w. bush administration and was part of the council of economic advisers. specimen so much for being here today. special thanks to mohammed el- erian and mr. taylor for flying from california. i went to kick off the panel with you. coined the term, the new normal in 2009. your outlook for the economy has been dead on. how much longer is this economy going to remain in the new normal? me take you back to 2009 when the new normal concept came out. the idea was to signal that it would not be your traditional cyclical recovery. unless the mindset in washington changed, and there was a better understanding of the underlying dynamics, we risked getting stuck. in a keyword of unusually sluggish clerk -- growth, high on implement, that is when it materialized. concept of the economy stuck in second gear. let me push this analogy. it is not just stuck in second gear, it is being driven on a foggy road. there is some good news. we are doing better than others. europe was in reverse and just went to neutral. japan has been neutral for a long time and just jumps to first gear. we are d
, boom, we saved george h.w. bush. race among we are stuck. we knew 100 years before the while thers, police let john mohammed go at least nine times, that racial profiles are problematic. question is, what can we do about it? weneed to keep doing what have just done in new york city where we passed the community what is a, because failure or for national security is a failure for neighborhood security. we need to focus on people's behavior, not on their race. ed last summer said derisively's officer working a neighborhood and he had a black and latino neighborhood and he had a suspect description of a race sucked -- rape suspect. he came across four young ladies sitting on a stoop, and said, have you seen this guy? no.soaid, they then stopped and frisked then. law enforcement is not that different from anything else. if you do one thing, you're not doing something else, so you better be doing the right thing. if you are searching for a rape suspect and you decide to stop and check if these for girls have a joint in their pocket, you are no longer looking for the rape suspect. that i
just a if uh -- just a few years ago in the bush administration, we didn't give the united nations inspection team on the ground enough time. george tennett, the cia chief at the time, walked into the oval office just before the invasion and said, mr. president, it's a slam dunk. there are weapons of mass destruction in iraq. while we know how that played out. so i think that it's very important that we allow the u.n. inspectors on the ground to do a thorough investigation. but frankly, gentlemen, i'm fearful that the iraq scene could reemerge as we know about one month or six weeks ago. president obama was quoted as saying, yes, they've used -- yes, the government of syria has used chemical weapons and i have proof of that. however, the president never indicated what his proof was. and that one tended to die. so, gentlemen, i'm fearful that the -- that the -- the warships that are now moving in closer to syria may -- may use their missiles to take out government airfields and government installations without waiting for the u.n. team to -- to do their full investigation which may
Search Results 0 to 37 of about 38 (some duplicates have been removed)